Rethford talks about the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 and talks about the Battle of Islandhlwana in which British forces were routed and the Battle of Rorke's Drift in which a vastly outnumbered British force defended their position from attacks by Zulu warriors.

While describing the Battle of Rorke's Drift the following passage appears.

The Zulus broke into the field hospital and savagely fought the sick and wounded. The hospital caught fire; the sick were dragged out. The battle raged on. The wounded found that they could function in some lesser capacity, carrying water, passing out ammunition, caring for those more seriously wounded. Only the dead stopped fighting.

To put it too kindly, a rather poor of choice of words.

The battles are portrayed from the perspective of the British soldiers. But one detail that Rethford does not mention about these battles is evidence that wounded Zulu soldiers were massacred by British personnel after the battle.

After the battle 351 Zulu bodies were counted, but it has been estimated that at least 500 wounded and captured Zulus might have been massacred as well. Having witnessed the carnage at Isandlwana, the members of Chelmsford's relief force had no mercy for the captured, wounded Zulus they came across. Nor did the station's defenders. Trooper William James Clarke of the Natal Mounted Police described in his diary that "altogether we buried 375 Zulus and some wounded were thrown into the grave. Seeing the manner in which our wounded had been mutilated after being dragged from the hospital ... we were very bitter and did not spare wounded Zulus". (Battle of Rorke's Drift, Wikipedia.)

But inconvenient facts such as that are ignored since they detract from his story.

And after describing the battles Rethford then seeks to apply lessons from those battles to PCG members.

The comparisons between these two battles and the battles we face today are frighteningly similar. In the last decade, when more than 140,000 WCG members fell, a superior enemy had overcome the larger force. We, the smaller numbers today, are now met by the enemy. Our success or failure depends on the battle plan we adopt.

He makes a call to PCG members to fervently believe what PCG's leaders taught them or else they will be deceived by Satan.

If we forget the true God, we don’t have a fortress. If we give up the truth, we don’t have a shield. Without God and His truth we’re caught out in the open. The massacred British soldiers at Islandhlwana were caught by surprise out in the open and were quickly overwhelmed by the enemy. That’s exactly what has happened to the Laodiceans.

He quotes Gerald Flurry's book, Malachi's Message, and states that Flurry was inspired by God writing that book.

Truly, as Mr. Flurry was inspired to write—without the truth [PCG's teachings], we are deceived. Without the true God and His truth, we are caught out in the open—we have no defense.

Actually it is well known that Malachi's Message was plagiarized from Letter to Laodicea by Jules Dervaes (1986-8) which contained many of the ideas in Malachi's Message and yet preceded it.

He insists that PCG members are estined to become God beings so they must remain loyal to PCG's leaders regardless of evidence that undermine PCG's claim for authority. He also implies that not remaining loyal to PCG will lead to becoming "eternally dead" and that the same could happen to his readers thus threatening their salvation.

Our potential is to be born into the God Family, receiving total power! We are to be given jurisdiction over the entire universe. Think of that. It will be an eternal life of accomplishment, constantly looking forward to new creative projects and looking back on past accomplishments with happiness and joy. We shall never grow tired and weary. Always alive and full of joyous energy, vitality, exuberant life and strength and power! What a potential!

Don’t let the cares of this life cause you to lose sight of that glorious goal. Losing sight of the Kingdom has resulted in many casualties already, and some are eternally dead. Don’t let this happen to you.

He also insists to PCG members to remain loyal to the organization, refers to Gerald Flurry as "God's prophet" and that (PCG's) God only works through the author's numerically small organization with headquarters in Edmond,

But even in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, these men at Rorke’s Drift kept faith in the leadership and followed directions. This is how they executed the seemingly impossible battle plan successfully.

This third point, then, is we must learn to keep our eyes on headquarters. Is Jesus Christ divided? Of course not (I Cor. 1:13). We have many proofs that He is only working through the small remnant of the PCG; but even if we only had one proof, the Work would be enough. ...

A greater work was done through God’s Elijah, Herbert Armstrong. That great Work continues today through God’s prophet, Gerald Flurry. We must focus our attention on the Work and where it is being done. We must keep our eyes on headquarters—Edmond, Oklahoma. Losing sight of whom God has placed in charge of His Work will cause us to become battle casualties.

People looking after their own interests is equated with being deceived by Satan.

Satan would love to see our thoughts turn again to ourselves and our carnal desires to rule our lives again. Then our part of the baptismal vow would be neglected, maybe even forgotten, so that God’s Spirit would no longer fill us. Satan hates us and is jealous of us because we are heirs to the Kingdom of God. We must never lower our defenses against him.

In other words if a PCG member's own interests should contradict the will of PCG's leaders then the member is expected to give up on his or her own interests.

If a PCG member should wish to keep at least some of the money sent as part of the three tithes to look after themselves and their families talk like this could be used in a way that is against the member's interest.

How terrible it is that the painful events of those days should be exploited to try and prop up this sectarian organization based in Edmond which constantly insists World War III will soon lead to the conquest of the United States. Their dire predictions will never happen. PCG are but false prophets.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Former Israeli Prime Minister and President Shimon Peres has died aged 90.

Although PCG often boasts of being friends of the Israeli nation as a matter of fact PCG's leaders such as Gerald Flurry, the late Ron Fraser, Joel Hilliker, have a long history of vituperatively condemning Shimon Peres.

They exploited news of what he did to spread scare mongering speculations that he would somehow cause the State of Israel to make a self defeating agreement with the Palestinians that will lead to the State of Israel being conquered by the future European Empire. They condemned him for trying to make concessions with the Palestinians.

PCG's writers have called Shimon Peres "one foxy old socialist ... set to worm his way back into prime focus" to collude with the European Union and the Vatican thus setting the stage for Israel to be conquered by Europe. He is accused of being a part of "the sellout of Israel". He is accused of often making secret deals. In one article it is even insinuated that he is an enemy of the State of Israel. In another place it is insinuated that he is a traitor and a deserter to Israel.

Let's take a look at what PCG's leaders said about Peres.

***

Sources within both the U.S. and Israeli administrations claim that America is intent on seeing Netanyahu removed from office so that he might be the scapegoat for the failed peace process. Meanwhile, the man whom Arafat has called his friend, Shimon Peres, waits in the wings, biding his time. (Israeli Pullback Continues, May 1998.)

***

Why is it that Shimon Peres has seemingly popped up (either behind the scenes or in many instances leading) in negotiations, sometimes secret, with the other protagonists involved in the tortuous peace process? Simple. Close investigation reveals that Peres is the prime link involved in the negotiations with the Vatican and the EU which are now resulting in the EU seeking to take over as the principle mediator and driving force in the “peace process,” marginalizing U.S. efforts. (Ron Fraser, Muscling into the Mideast, March-April 2001.)

***

But most significantly, it was Shimon Peres who in 1993 brokered the deal with Pope John Paul II to hand over sovereignty of Jerusalem’s Old City to the Vatican. Although we have observed enough snippets of intelligence here and there to build the picture, author Barry Chamish’s research has done much to expose this traitorous act. (Ron Fraser, Muscling into the Mideast, March-April 2001.)

***

Ariel Sharon may be the elected leader of Israel, but watch forone foxy old socialist to slide into the picture as the power behind the throne in a unity government between Likud and Labor. Once again Shimon Peres is set to worm his way back into prime focus as the mediator between Israel, the PLO, the EU and the Vatican. (Ron Fraser, Muscling into the Mideast,March-April 2001.)

***

Remember how the EU clearly has exploited the liberal politics of Israeli Nobel laureate Shimon Peres to its advantage. As we detailed in our March-April issue, Mr. Peres has always placed great faith in the land-for-peace formula, cutting back-alley deals with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Vatican for Israeli real estate, all with the firm approval of the European Union.

Now carrying the political clout of the foreign ministership within the conservative Israeli government of Ariel Sharon,Peres recently revealed himself as a deserter! July 3, he warned “that he could step down from his post if the Israeli government does not stop trying to undermine Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.… ‘I will not be able to continue in my role if you keep trying to delegitimize Yasser Arafat’ [he told] parliament’s committee on defense and foreign affairs” (Agence France Presse, July 3).

Nothing could have made Europe more proud! Mr. Peres is surely dancing to the EU’s tune as he virtually blackmails his own government into dealing with Arafat, a confirmed terrorist, on his own terms. ...

As for Mr. Peres, he wears his love for Europe on his sleeve. In April, he visited the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, another Middle East enclave that Europe seems intent on incorporating. He praised the Cypriots for taking advantage of EU moves toward “the Europeanization of the island in the heart of the Mediterranean.” He was happy, he said, that Israel and Cyprus shared the goal of “Europeanizing the Middle East,” a trend he believes will secure peace and freedom in the region. “Europeanization will change everything,” he said.

Mr. Peres laid out his dream of the future for Israel—a future in which Israel is, of all things, “Europeanized”! Peres’s deal with the Vatican to give away half of Jerusalem to Rome had been made in secret, during the previous decade, at a time when it was not fashionable to talk of “Europeanizing” Israel. Now it is out in the open and the subject of a public lecture by Peres. (Joel Hilliker, The Counterfeit Peacemaker, August 2001.)

***

Israeli author Barry Chamish has long maintained that the present deputy leader of Israel, Shimon Peres, the Vatican and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat have colluded since the Madrid peace talks to impose a “final solution” on Israel which is to the advantage of the Palestinians, the Catholic Church and the European Union. (Surrounded By Armies?, August 2001.)

***

In order to gain the needed support to avoid both the collapse of his government (which has already been subjected to three failed no-confidence motions) and the forcing of early elections, as well as to gain backing for his Gaza initiative, Sharon is seeking a coalition with the main opposition party, the center-left Labor led by Shimon Peres, along with some small religious factions. Though there is general consensus that Likud-Labor partnership would be limited in duration, any such relationship between Sharon and Peres will likely speed the sellout of Israel, as Peres is a strong proponent of ceding land to Israel’s enemies. (Political Chaos Eroding Will, January 2005.)

***

Military cooperation between Germany and Israel tracks back to the conclusion of secret accords between Franz Josef Strauss, Germany’s defense minister at the time, and his wily contemporary in Israel, Shimon Peres. Negotiations between the two began as far back as 1957. By 1962 they matured into a secret agreement for Germany to supply Israel with armaments and military training for the Israeli Defense Forces.

Foisted off onto the public as Germany’s obligation to “protect Israel” being its due penance for the Holocaust, German Middle East policy is in fact geared to achieving, by diplomacy, trade and military assistance, that which Rommel was denied in battle: the extension of German hegemony into the oil-rich Middle East. (Ron Fraser, On Jerusalem's Doorstep, November-December 2006.)

***

Today, Shimon Peres is the president of Israel, serving under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Mr. Peres is once again a key player in the “peace” negotiations. He was there at the beginning of the Oslo Accord, and it appears he will be there at the disastrous end. (Gerald Flurry, The Oslo Accord: Israel’s Death Knell, April 2008.)

***

Flurry's false prophecy that Peres would be present at "the disastrous end" has failed. This is yet another false prophecy from PCG. Just one more of many false prophecies.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Every Friday Mark Armstrong, leader of the Intercontinental Church of God, publishes a weekly update which is often quite stridently polemic and condemning of political movements and people he does he align with. Sometimes they can be especially vicious. His June 3, 2016 weekly update was particularly venomous as he scare mongers about illegal immigrants, Muslims and those who wish to welcome asylum seekers.

He scare mongers that society can easily fall apart. To support this scare mongering he cites protests against Trump.

We're seeing how quickly civilized society can be turned ugly and violent, especially when the police stand back and watch! Illegal aliens now believe they're impervious to any and all authority, and they can assail citizens, stomp police cars, burn American flags and wave the flag of Mexico. Oh, but that's just because of the divisive rhetoric of a political candidate. He made them act out like this!

Incidentally around that time Trump visited his golf course in Scotland and some people there who are not planning to migrate to the United States chose to fly a Mexican flag to signal their displeasure at him. One wonders what Mark Armstrong would have thought of that.

He then shrilly and nonsensically insists that (somehow) America 's "entire economic system" will be destroyed based on current behavior because of immigrants getting social welfare.

Would that it was true. In fact, they have ensconced themselves throughout American society, taking advantage of what was intended to be a temporary "safety net" for the poor. But there's nothing temporary about it. Government "programs" have become a way of life for those who would invade American society. Whoever is credited with coining the phrase it certainly has merit in this case, and it goes like this, "You can't have open borders and a welfare state at the same time." The reasons are obvious, and the eventual collapse of our entire economic system are absolutely guaranteed on the current trajectory. Guilty as we Americans are, we're expected by the current administration and the many in the mainstream media to accept what will inevitably befall us, realizing we had it coming.

What nonsense. The United States is the most powerful nation state in the world by far. It is absurd and ridiculous to insinuate that the United States' "entire economic system" could collapse because of some immigrants.

His rant then takes a disturbing turn. So often Armstrongite leaders exploit certain views about peoples' sexuality to keep the lay members under control.

He then talks about the refugee crisis in Europe. He describes two incidents, one in Norway and another incident concerning a Facebook post in Germany, to condemn those open to letting refugees migrate to the United States, Germany, Norway and other Western nation states.

This is just awful. To accuse people one disagrees with as somehow being sympathetic with rapists is just awful and terrible. That is not a debate but a vicious demonization of those of a differing view. What a frightening, vindictive and vicious thing to say.

The first link in this paragraph is to an Al Jazeera America article discussing volunteers helping refugees in Europe.

The second link is to a WorldNetDaily article. That article does not describe any of the victims as volunteers supporting refugees.

WorldNetDaily is a far right media outlet. It is about as far right as one can get without becoming an actual extremist. The COGs have a history of tending to cite that far right media outlet. Infamously it played a leading role in spreading the nonsensical rumor that President Obama was not born in the United States.

The third link is to an article from Shoebat.com which quotes the Facebook post but says nothing about her hosting refugees. Also, based on the translation provided in that article, it is not an apology to the rapist in any way.

Strangely the articles linked to in that paragraph quoted above do not contain the much of the information he describes. Where did he get this information from? Apparently from another article from WorldNetDaily. That WorldNetDaily article mentions people hosting refugees but the woman who made that Facebook post under discussion is not mentioned as hosting refugees, The details appears to be confused in this weekly update. One wonders why he did not link to that article?

Also the information about the male victim is also present in that WorldNetDaily article. On that matter it cites Breitbart, a right wing media outlet described as part of the alt-right. Elsewhere in the weekly update Mark Armstrong links to Breitbart's web site. Its editor was recently hired by the Trump campaign and has recently been the subject of concern.

The details appears to be confused in this weekly update. One wonders why he did not link to this article?

Let us now return to the weekly update.

He then ridicules education at Universities as "anti-American brainwashing".

This is the attitude we're all expected to adopt, under the philosophical logic underlying the current administration, and the anti-American brainwashing that now passes for education at most universities.

He states that he and like minded individuals will not follow the attitude that he condemns. He somewhat amusingly describes himself and like minded individuals as "us bitter clingers".

The weekly update then takes a disturbing turn. He makes a reference to holding on to "the means to protect our property and families." This is possibly a reference to using guns.

He also makes the paranoid claim that the federal government will make people like him a minority insinuating that mass arrests or even mass violence will soon be unleashed by the federal government against people like him.

Some of us bitter clingers aren't letting go. We're hanging on to our Bibles, our true history and the means to protect our property and families. But we may well be in the minority. If not, it won't be long before the taxpayer-sponsored invasion makes sure of it. We don't know if somehow there'll be another gasp of sanity for the United States, or whether we've strayed so far from God's way of life that it's almost over.

Such talk is frightening. How can one debate with others while making such hysterical claims? This is a toxic attitude that makes it impossible for one to live in peace with people who views things differently.

No good can come from this paranoid and hostile attitude present within this organization.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

In response to the mass protests and rioting in Charlotte following the shooting to death Keith Lamont Scott LCG, which is headquartered in Charlotte, highlighted an article by Jonathan Bueno discussing protests against police brutality which was released last month. It is entitled "Race Riots Ahead?" (August 16, 2016.)

The main problem in this article is that the author fails to discuss the disadvantages that African Americans experience. He writes as though the racial disparity endured by the African American community does not need to be discussed in this topic.

If only Ferguson, Missouri were the end of a terrible, disheartening story. Sadly, it was not. Recent publicized shootings of black men by police officers has ignited waves of protests in the United States, and has resulted in two confirmed retaliatory shootings of police officers in both Dallas, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

What is going on? Will there be an end to the divisions in this country? Or are there even more troubling things ahead for America, including race riots? Furthermore, how should Christians respond?

Those frightening and dreadful acts of murder in Dallas and Baton Rouge were not acts of protest at all. They were foul acts of murders. The protest movement is an attempt to stop police violence. The vast majority of those involved do not want violence and want less violence afflicting their societies. It is, to say the least, problematic that the author should equate those foul acts of murder with a predominantly peaceful protest movement that arose to stop violence.

This growing rift in our society, regardless of who is to blame, has serious implications.

In other words the cries of African American protesters for the violence to stop and their publicly stated yearning to live without the fear of violence is ignored and de-emphasized.

Jesus Christ predicted racial tensions 2,000 years ago—and unless there is nationwide repentance, tragic incidents like what happened in Baton Rouge and Dallas will continue and increase!

Why does the author choose to highlight those two terrible incidents and not mention the other fatal incidents which sparked the Black Lives Matter movement? Are not the lives of ordinary African Americans as important as any other human life?

The answer is simple, though most will completely dismiss it. There is a real spirit world, filled with fallen angels possessing power to influence mankind and stir up wrong attitudes and emotions—including hatred and murderousness.... The Bible reveals that Satan the devil is the “god of this age,” and will increasingly exert his evil influence with terrible consequences—leading to worldwide destruction....

This de-emphasizes the issue of police brutality. If African Americans were not afraid of experiencing violence at the hands of police officers this protest movement and the unfortunate riot in Charlotte would not have happened. Alas, one protester in Charlotte, namely Justin Carr, has already been killed during the disturbances. By ignoring the issue of police violence the author makes the protests and the comparatively rare riot appear to have arisen from nowhere. That is not a helpful view.

Black lives matter—and so do white lives, and members of all other races. All people, black, white, male and female are made in the image of God.... And in times like these, when negative emotions run high, Christians must stand fast in God’s word.

This statement inaccurately implies that Black Lives Matter protesters think "only black lives matters." This is not true. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding. Rather they are saying "black lives matter as well." They are persuaded that the lives of African Americans are not valued as much as whites. They want to be valued as much as whites in order to reduce police violence and protect themselves, their families and friends. Any other community enduring a similar situation would surely protest such a situation as well.

The Bible instructs what Christians should do. First, violent retaliation is never the answer in the face of injustice, whether real or perceived.

The Black Lives Matter movement for the most part has been peaceful. But there have been comparatively unusual exceptions to this rule in Ferguson, Baltimore and now Charlotte that tend to, among other things, divert attention from the vast majority of protesters who are peaceful. These problems do not happen for no reason. This protest movement is a response to police violence. Address the police violence and the situation will calm down.

Racial tensions are predicted to continue on a global scale, especially the more this world turns away from God. There are dire straits ahead for any country that abandons morality, even as secular historians note. This is especially true for an ethnically diverse United States.

Is the author implying that racial diversity somehow weakens society? This is, to say the least, a terribly inaccurate view.

Will racial tensions continues? Regardless of what happens in the future it deserves to be noted that LCG does not know what will happen in the future. Armstrongism has a long history of making many false prophecies over the years.

Sadly this article fails to hear the cries of the Black Lives Matter protesters and ignores the problem of police violence. With an attitude like that LCG's leaders will never understand what is happening and will be inclined to inaccurately view these problems as inexplicable thus hindering them and their followers from helpfully addressing this issue.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

In the hometown of LCG HQ an African American, Keith Lamont Scott, was shot to death by a police officer and in response there have been protests and, unfortunately, rioting. Family members say that he was unarmed and was simply reading a book while waiting to pick up his son. Police said he had a gun on him.

Police fatally shot an African-American man named Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Tuesday evening. According to the Charlotte Observer, officer Brentley Vinson, who is also African American, fired the shot that killed the 43-year-old father in the parking lot of the Village at College Downs apartment complex. Protests erupted at the site of the shooting, during which which “several dozen police officers in riot gear” fired tear gas into the crowd. Witnesses of the shooting and the officers involved give vastly different accounts of what actually transpired. (Kalli Halloway, Charlotte Cops Kill Man Who Was Allegedly Unarmed and Reading in Car Setting Off Protests, Alternet, September 20, 2016.)

Considering that this is happening in LCG's hometown let us note the following tweet they sent to the world.

This tweet ignores the problem of police violence and scare mongers about "race riots", as though this problem is simply because people of different races living together. It inaccurately implies that these problems are unsolvable. What a terribly flawed way to view these unfortunate events.

These protests and the (compared to the protests) rare and quite unfortunate riots do not just happen. If the issue of police violence is handled properly then events such as these protests and this unfortunate riot will stop happening.

Time magazine recently made a list of the fifty best places to live in the United States. One entry was for Edmond, Oklahoma, the site of PCG's headquarters. It mentioned PCG's unaccredited college. The article does does not mention the $24 million Armstrong Auditorium,

Around town you’ll find almost two dozen recreational parks plus two other universities: Herbert W. Armstrong College and Oklahoma Christian University. (Time, Money, 50 Best Places to Live 2016, 48. Edmond, Oklahoma.)

No mention of the organization behind HWA College. No mention of the problems surrounding PCG. No mention that PCG's college is unaccredited.

Time magazine is overlooking a great story. A magnificent and wonderful story awaits any journalist willing to look just a little closer at the organization sponsoring the unaccredited Herbert W' Armstrong College, namely the organization that is named the Philadelphia Church of God which is led by one Gerald Flurry.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Haven't made a post on Mark Armstrong's weekly update since May 23 but Intercontinental COG's leader has lost none of his venomous, misanthropic invective as may be seen in his September 16, 2016 weekly update. This time he decides to moan about Muslim immigrants. This implies that immigrants are fine for him so long as they do not follow a particular religion he does not like. That is known as religious discrimination.

It is well known that many of the refugees going to Europe are fleeing the catastrophic war in Syria that has been raging since 2011 and which has killed so many people. Of course not all the refugees are from Syria but that cataclysmic war is a major factor in the current mass immigration into Europe. By complaining about Muslim immigrants instead of Syrians or any other specific nationality Mark Armstrong, intentionally or not, obscures their the connection with the war in Syria.

He complains about Muslim immigrants. Not terrorists. Not violent people. Not people of a particular ethnicity. Just people who happen to be Muslim.

In the United States, you either accept and embrace the president's importation and settlement of Muslim immigrants into the cities and towns of America or you're a bigoted xenophobe. Those who oppose the squalid influx in Europe are now reliably described by the liberal media there as neo-Nazis.

Discriminating against people just because they belong to a certain religion is illegal. It is not legally permissible for the United States to simply ban Muslims or other religious from entering the country. Embittering his followers at their presence in the country does nothing worthwhile and merely inflames tensions unnecessarily.

He gleefully denounces Chancellor Merkel for accepting refugees into Germany.

The identification of terror plots was a top priority for law enforcement long before the admission of a million some odd “refugees” from the Middle East and north Africa by the ever-so compassionate German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Despite the fact that she's defended the move and relentlessly tried to manipulate public opinion, what's transpired in the aftermath of her disastrous policies, supported by the “globalist” masters of the European Union, goes way beyond the “problems” European cities were already experiencing with lawless Muslim ghettos.

Who are these "“globalist” masters of the European Union" he talks about?

Young Muslim men are vilified as taking advantage of charity before hiding into "sprawling Muslim ghettos" which he compares with a "plague".

Thousands of young Muslim men registered at asylum centers in Switzerland, many as “unaccompanied minors,” making them eligible for special financial benefits and treatment. For weeks or months, they took advantage of food and shelter services offered them, often staffed by well-meaning volunteers, before disappearing completely. They're somewhere in Europe, absorbed into the sprawling Muslim ghettos that plague nearly every big city or inhabiting one of the lawless camps like the “jungle” on the northern coast of France.

Note how he view the mere presence of Muslims in these European cities as a "plague". This is very disturbing rhetoric. It is a terrible thing to talk about human beings as though they were a "plague".

Mark Armstrong then makes a wild and ridiculous accusation that the left are plotting to give themselves "over to Muslim cultural demands."

Obviously it would be, as the EU elite have put it, “giving in to right-wing sentiment” should the truth about the situation be reported in the mainstream press. There is every indication that Europe, at least the media and EU leadership, is giving itself over to Muslim cultural demands. President Francois Holland has called for the creation of an “Islam of France” saying that there's no conflict between Islam and secularism. In Germany, television ads are running to encourage the wearing of burqas and headscarves. They're beautiful! And they might prevent a female from being attacked and raped, that's the subliminal message.

It is a very common theme in right wing Islamophobia to link (stereotyped and vilified) Muslims with the left in order to discredit the both of them.

Talk like this seems designed to imply that Muslims are going to take over. This is a ridiculous claim.

He gleefully notes that Merkel's party did not do very well in the recent elections. He also resorts to red baiting by alleging that she is using "Marxists economic policies" to gain popular support.

So far, Angela Merkel and EU leadership with the media in tow seem to have a majority of public support in their “humanitarian treatment” of Muslim immigrants. But that may be starting to crack. The party of Angela Merkel just suffered a humiliating defeat in a district of formerly East Germany that knows her well. A telling article in the American Thinker asks “Is Germany Lurching to the Far Right?” It cites the dwindling chances of Mrs. Merkel being re-elected next year and shows that she is relying on Marxists economic policies to convince voters that there is enough wealth to support German social programs and take care of all the Muslim immigrants.

But Mark Armstrong lives in the United States. Most of his followers are in the United States. So naturally his scare mongering of Muslim immigrants in Europe is to make his American followers scared and fearful. He scare mongers that Europe has already reached the point of no return making the acceptance of immigrants sound really scary.

We in the United States are lectured with similarly deceptive nonsense almost daily. It is a deception that will become widely apparent only after the situation has deteriorated to the point of no return. For Europe, with its millions of Muslims who have no intention or desire to assimilate, that point has been reached.

Did he talk with any of these immigrants? How does he know what they intend? More ridiculous scare mongering.

The United States is headed rapidly in that direction thanks to a philosophy, taught in nearly every school and university, that our founders were slave owners and therefore ours is an unjust racist system that deserves to be overthrown and overrun.

It never ceases to amaze me how he choose to throw so many different topics together almost (but not quite) like a word salad.

Also it is well known that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Mentioning that is a statement of fact, not a philosophy.

There is nothing wrong with addressing problems but he implies that people seeking to reform society to address problems of inequality afflicting African Americans and other ethnic minorities are somehow plotting to overthrow and overrun the United States. What a ridiculous thing to say about such reformers.

And so we see that Mark Armstrong's weekly updates have lost none of their rhetorical venom or chaotic shifting of topics. He continuously writes like this in his weekly updates.

Mark Armstrong's weekly updates are only available for a week.

*******

More of Mark Armstrong's weekly rants have been discussed in the following posts:

Mark Armstrong, Now Living in Sodom and Gomorrah, Speaks Out Against "Queer Matrimony", Banned by HWA, June 27, 2015.

At the Values Voters Summit that occurred recently Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin mused that blood would be shed, seemingly in order to overthrow a Clinton presidency.

Somebody asked me yesterday, I did an interview and they said, “Do you think it’s possible, if Hillary Clinton were to win the election, do you think it’s possible that we’ll be able to survive? That we would ever be able to recover as a nation? And while there are people who have stood on this stage and said we would not, I would beg to differ. But I will tell you this: I do think it would be possible, but at what price? At what price? The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood, of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something, that we through our apathy and our indifference have given away.

While there seems to be an audience within the COGs that can be made fearful over what a student in California may happen to say what about the inflammatory words of the governor of Kentucky? Do they fear these words? If not then why are such troubling words ignored by them?

Saturday, September 17, 2016

So Dwight Falk and Grant Turgeon (Gerald Flurry's grandson) hosted another radio broadcast. Let's take a little look. (Trumpet Radio Live, September 9, 2016.)

It is stated that we are living in a time like the days just before World War II.

There is fear mongering about German military expansion. Meanwhile in the real world the United States is still by far the most powerful military power in the world.

Exploiting Suffering European Jews

They discuss a Breitbart article, a right wing media outlet that has been quoted in PCG's writings in at least twenty articles since 2006, discussing Jews being persecuted in Europe and migrating from there at record levels (31 minutes).

One wonders if PCG's 1% have ever discussed what has recently been said about a certain individual involved with that media outlet.

At one point it is mentioned that there are millions of Muslims in France. Unfortunately PCG has a long history of demonizing Muslims in general.

Cites Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations.

At one point Falk says anti-Semitism is popular. (33 minutes.)

Bigotry of all forms, including anti-Semitisim, must be most stridently opposed. To cite the anxiety and fear of many European Jews at present to promote the paranoid idea that some sort of World War III will soon erupt in which the United States is destroyed by a German led European Union (as is taught elsewhere in PCG's writings) is a shameful exploitation of their fears and of the tense situation they are in. They need helpful solutions, not being used as a prop to promote PCG's message of doom for non-members.

There are many problems today but a nuclear war of the sort that PCG preaches is most unlikely.

Scare Mongering Against Immigrants

Starting at 34 minutes they then discuss a story about a Mongolian woman who falsely told the police that she was being stalked by her boyfriend. The story is from Fox News. They then go into a rant about illegal immigrants, feminists, liberals, people saying Trump says racist things, etc.

[Grant Turgeon:] They're still fast tracked to citizenship despite, even if they, even if they're proved wrong. So it is quite extraordinary that we have laws like that in this country that would make such a thing possible.

[Dwight Falk:] I think that's a great example of people coming into the nation and seeing a way to manipulate it to stay. I mean they know that the popular thinking is, you know, "Oh, the persecution. Oh, the inequality." And all of that. Which if you're not a citizen that's a ridiculous comment anyway. You don't, I mean, yeah, a citizen.

But you can see how they know that people are sympathetic. They know that people are going to jump onboard with it. So they are just playing the system. Do they actually feel that way? Like they're being taken advantage of? Of course not. But they, it doesn't matter because they are playing the media and that liberal thinking against itself for their own advantage. And they're just being played for fools, quite frankly, and going along with it.

[Turgeon:] People from afar, all over the world, can see that we're easily taken advantage of now in these areas. (37-38 minutes.)

Turgeon then complains about feminists describing a rape culture making a clumsy comparison with immigrants allegedly trying to gain citizenship on false pretenses.

[Turgeon:] It reminds me a lot actually of the feminist cause of, you know, promoting or saying there's a rape culture in society and how anytime a girl said someone raped her she should be believed. There are cases where the girl's been raped. There's also a lot, a lot of times where it's just an accusation. And they're even distorting the definition of rape to mean regret after the fact and that's still rape somehow. It's just a ... there's no truth involved. I think that's the whole crux of the issue. There's no truth but it's just exploiting a system, gaining the status of victim hood which is pretty much the height [of] status in America today. (38-39 minutes.)

What a terribly bad choice of talking about this most serious issue with immigrants in this context. It would have been better to bring up another topic in such a conversation.

Then Falk lambaste people who call Trump racist.

[Falk:] If you ask a lot of people about, say, a Donald Trump they'll say well that he's a racist and a bigot. And say well what did that, you know, he say that well that is that way. And they don't have anything or an, "I don't know." Or they'll say that he wants to build a wall. But again they've just heard it. It's just the thing to say. They don't even really know. They don't have any thoughts on it personally about how that works logically. It's just the thing to say. (39 minutes.)

There is already a border there with fences and guards monitoring it. Under President Obama deportations have reached record levels. But PCG leans far to the right so they are not inclined to note facts like that.

Perhaps he should recall how Joel Hilliker described Trump when he first discussed his presidential campaign.

And they [voters] are so disenchanted with politics as usual that they’re willing to overlook this man’s considerable flaws—his arrogance, his narcissism, his public, petty, childish insults. (Joel Hilliker, How Much Confidence Do You Have in America’s Political Process?, October 9, 2015.)

PCG's 1% tend to live cocooned in an information bubble of media sources they choose to trust which tend to lean to the political right. I do not condemn PCG for choosing to be right wing but it is important to note that they are right wing. Perhaps this radio host should get out of this right wing information bubble and listen to people who condemn Trump. Here is one example listing 176 complaints about Trump.

They then go into more scare mongering about immigrants supposedly getting into relationships to gain citizenship in the United States. Turgeon even claims that "plenty of Hispanics" support Trump's proposal to build a wall.

[Turgeon:] That's why there are plenty of Hispanics who actually do support Donald Trump's plan to build the wall. They're here legally. That's the difference. The ones here legally actually largely would support Donald Trump. ... Now they're seeing people just flood across the border and being allowed to stay. That would obviously be infuriating to a lot of them. It's not that these are policies against all races and all immigrants and that we don't want anybody here. But the ones who that are coming here illegally and then causing problems while they're here. Why should we put up with it? (45-46 minutes.)

And right after that Falk then criticize those who oppose Trump's proposal to build a wall.

It's so funny if people get upset at building a barrier because everybody has a barrier. If you have a house or a place of residence what is it ... what is it made up of? A series of walls. Why are they there? It's so other people can't get in. (46 minutes.)

There is already a barrier at the border and deportation levels have reached record highs under President Obama. Furthermore a house is not like a nation state. This is a false equivalence.

And so we see that PCG's leaders continue to peddle fear and despair to their followers. But there is no need to fear their dire proclamations. PCG's leaders are but false prophets.

PCG's Stephen Flurry recently denounced Trump's proposal to give paid parental leave to some parents should he become president by calling him a socialist.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has gained a huge amount of support this election season by promising to undo the policies of the Obama administration. But as we draw closer to the general election, Mr. Trump has embraced views typically espoused by Democrats. As columnist Charles Krauthammer recently put it, Trump is trying to "out-Democrat the Democrats.” On today’s Trumpet Daily Radio Show, Stephen Flurry discusses this development and more. (Stephen Flurry, Trump's New Entitlement Program: Make Socialism Great Again?, September 15, 2016.)

If even the Republican nominee for president can be labelled a Socialist according to PCG's heir apparent then does the word "socialist" even mean anything to PCG's 1% except as a term of deprecation for politicians they do not like?

The proposal to provide parental leave to some parents is condemned as giving more entitlements to people. He complains that it means taxpayer money will be wasted. He complains that it is an expansion of government and that government needs to be reduced.

Buttressing this claim Stephen Flurry even talks as though the United States is at this very moment broke. If so then why does no one act like it? Why are the police officers still getting paid? Why do so many people choose to invest in US bonds? Why are interest rates so low for US bonds?

Here are some facts that contradict Stephen Flurry's dire assertions that America is somehow broke.

The U.S. dollar is a global reserve currency. It is considered the least risky asset in international finance. If investors have to start taking haircuts on this debt, it means that the way money is measured around the world would be thrown into question. All kinds of businesses, both domestic and foreign, would grind to a halt as investors stopped to figure out how to sort out the mess. Even in a best-case scenario, the results would be catastrophic. Financial markets eventually sorted things out after the 2008 meltdown, but it still sparked the worst recession in 75 years. A default on U.S. government debt would be worse.

And there is no reason for the government to default. The U.S. government owes $12.8 trillion to the public. The majority of this money is owed to American citizens and businesses. And the annual output of the U.S. economy is currently $18.1 trillion and growing. The federal government collects over $3 trillion in taxes every year. The national debt just isn’t that big a deal. If it were, you’d see investors demanding high interest rates on American debt. But interest rates are in fact very low, meaning investors think the U.S. will not have trouble paying its debts.

Even if the United States eventually saw interest rates rise, the government could easily deal with it by raising taxes or simply printing more money. Printing money would pose the risk of modest inflation over the long term, and inflation isn’t an ideal way to deal with problems. But a little bit of inflation is way better than crashing the global economy. (Zach Carter, "Great, Donald Trump Threatened To Default On The National Debt," Huffington Post, May 6, 2016.)

It is nonsense to say that the United States is broke. It is simply not the case.

Later in the broadcast Stephen Flurry talks approvingly of President Calvin Coolidge who is praised for cutting bureaucratic regulations, cutting the national debt and is held up as a true conservative unlike Trump.

Just a few months after President Coolidge left office the Great Depression struck the United States. Economic collapse such as that does not just happen. Such an event happens for a reason. Perhaps Stephen Flurry should be weary of idealizing him.

Stephen Flurry ends with a religiously themed section talking about the need to be a responsible assistant citing David and Paul.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

PCG's resident McCarthyite is back. PCG has just released another issue of their recruitment magazine. This time he is going to talk about some sinister Communist plot to get rid of the family. (Andrew Müller, Nationalizing the Family, October 2016.)

Let's see what he has to say.

In a world free of income inequality, the family is not the basic building block of society. Instead, the societal functions that the family traditionally provided are “nationalized” in the hands of the state.

If this world of income equality seems distant or far-fetched now, the more you read about it, the more familiar it will feel.

Müller then discusses a book by Friedrich Engels in which he speculated about the origins of the family unit. Since Engels happened to be an Atheist of a Marxist persuasion his ideas were very different from what PCG's 1% would say. Does Müller expect everyone to think the same as himself?

Engels’s analysis concluded that “the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” Since children in such a society would be cared for by the state, all relationships between a man and a woman would be based exclusively upon “individual sex love.”

Does this mean that this PCG writer objects to men and women getting into intimate relationships based on their individual feelings?

Engels taught that abolishing the scourge of private property would lead to the withering away of the oppressive traditional family structure. His disciples said that “free love” and “sexual emancipation” were virtues to be encouraged to usher in a world where the monogamous family is no longer the “economic unit of society.”

Müller seems unaware of the highly theoretical nature of these kinds of speculations. He seems to think Engels' writings constituted a part of some sinister conspiracy to subvert society.

The vision Engels taught of a utopian society caught on. It spread perhaps more than any other ideology of his day. Three decades after his death in 1895, his theories on economics and the family had spread across Asia and Eastern Europe. Russia abolished private property rights in 1917 and forced as many women as possible out of the home and into the factories and other professions. Beginning in 1918, the government launched a nationwide sexual revolution by decriminalizing homosexuality, legalizing no-fault divorce and recognizing unmarried cohabitation as the juridical equal of registered marriage.

Actually the Bolshevik regime abolished various Tsarist morality laws and neglected to make laws concerning homosexuals afterward. But this decriminalization of homosexuality only applied to what became the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. This measure did not apply elsewhere in the Soviet Union and some of the Soviet Socialist Republics actually banned homosexuality. But these facts that complicate Müller's fear mongering are consigned to oblivion in this slanted article. His readers deserve better,

Engels’s utopian vision was becoming reality. In 1920, Russia became the first country in the world to provide free abortions upon request. Government bureaucrats were replacing the unpaid labor of women in the home with a society of communal dining halls, day-care centers and public laundries.

The Russian family began to wither away as planned. But a problem arose. Millions of children of the millions of “sexually emancipated” men and women were abandoned. Faced with an economic crisis, the Russian government backtracked on implementing the vision of equality.

So Russia became more conservative about sexual affairs. The speculations of Engels were relegated as something to occur in the distant future.

People living in the Western world saw these catastrophes in Russia, China and elsewhere, and accepted them as proof that the grand utopian ideal of total income equality was an ideological failure.

But he needs people to remain scared. Noting that Russia and China in many are actually quite conservative is problematic for this article. So he presents another boogeyman, namely Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist who was prominent in the 1920s and 1930s.

In the West, Gramsci argued, you had to wither the family first, and then you could take over the government. Gramsci argued that the culture underpinning Western civilization had to be fundamentally transformed before the working class could capture the power of the state. Instead of waging a violent coup d’état against the government, Gramsci advocated a strategy of infiltrating Western culture. He called this plan to establish cultural hegemony through infiltration and subversion, the “Passive Revolution.”

According to the Prison Notebooks, a coup d’état that occurred before the “fortresses and earthworks” of civil society had been subverted would quickly be overthrown by counterrevolutionaries. Get control of the government, and the people will just reject it and elect another one like they had before. The only way to permanently defeat such counterrevolutionaries was to establish a “counterculture.”

Gramsci has long been used by certain sections of the political right to scare monger about Communists and the left in general. I remember encountering talk like this about Gramsci back in 2007. Müller is merely imitating other right wing ideologues. It is absurd to insinuate that the counterculture is the result of some sinister conspiracy masterminded by Gramsci. That is sheer paranoia.

Müller then brings in another boogeyman to scare his readers, namely Wilhelm Reich.

One famous student of Freud was psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, often
dubbed the “father of the sexual revolution.” In his 1936 book titled The Sexual Revolution, Reich argued that sexual emancipation would lead to “psychological unburdening” and positive economic change.

The first draft of The Sexual Revolution reported on the
societal changes Reich observed on a trip to Russia in 1929. The
dismantling of the Russian family structure deeply impressed Reich. He
saw it as a huge step toward economic equality. Reich warned that
re-criminalizing homosexuality or re-criminalizing abortion or any other
attempts to backtrack on the societal changes he observed would
ultimately lead to “the demise of the revolution.”

What Müller fails to note that Reich published a book in 1933 entitled The Mass Psychology of Fascism which was so critical of the Soviet Union as well that he was kicked out of the German Communist Party. This aspect of Reich's life and how it suggests that Reich publicly spoke out against the authoritarianism in the Soviet Union at that time is ignored by Müller.

Like Engels and Gramsci, Reich believed the family as a building block of society had to be abolished. He believed monogamous marriages trapped people in an exclusive relationship as a price for financial security. Therefore liberation from Judeo-Christian morality would liberate people from economic reliance on the family unit. As Donald De Marco and Ben Wiker wrote in Architects of the Culture of Death, “Reich saw the family, with its inevitable patriarchal authority, as the chief source of repression. Therefore, the family had to be dismantled.”

Architects of the Culture of Death is a 2004 book published by Ignatius Press, a Catholic publishing firm. PCG has a long history of demonizing the Catholic Church. How ironic it is that one of their writers nevertheless uses a book by a Catholic publishing house in this article.

Müller scare mongers about Reich being a Communist. And indeed for a time Reich was a member of the German Communist Party. Until 1933. That detail is omitted in this article.

In January 1964, Time magazine declared, “Dr. Wilhelm Reich may have been a prophet.”

One wonders how he learned of this quote. Maybe he should have cited the source.

Other aspects of Reich's life are also omitted in Müller's article. He never discusses Reich's later descent into promoting eccentric pseudo-science and how it led into legal issues with the Food and Drug Administration that led to his going to jail. He died shortly before serving his term. Not mentioning these things allow Müller to present Reich as a boogeyman instead of being an ordinary man with strengths and weaknesses like anyone else.

The most influential philosopher of the New Left movement was Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse was an educator from the Institute for Social Research at Goethe University. His most famous work, Eros and Civilization, repackaged many principles Reich outlined in The Sexual Revolution. The main argument presented in both works was that Judeo-Christian repression of a person’s natural sexual instinct enslaved him to a patriarchal family structure, psychologically inhibiting acceptance of economic liberation.

There is a name for the idea Müller is presenting here: cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I first came upon this theory back in 2007. Marcuse has long been used by right wing ideologues to discredit the various social changes that has occurred since the 1960s. Let us note where this idea that the Frankfurt School somehow engineered the changes of the sixties emerged.

However, since the 1990s the term "Cultural Marxism" has been misappropriated by the paleoconservative movement as part of an ongoing Culture War where it refers to a conspiracy theory in which The Frankfurt School are seen as having engineered the downfall of western society using multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness as their methods. This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich but also holds currency among alt-right/white nationalist groups and the neo-reactionary movement.

Weyrich first aired his conception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating this usage in his widely syndicated Culture War Letter. At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for The Free Congress Foundation; in it Lind identifies the presence of homosexuals on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution. (Wikipedia.)

This seems to be the source of Müller's fixation on Marcuse. Once again Müller is merely imitating other right wing ideologues. It seems clear that Müller is being influenced by sources such as these. It is quite likely he got this theory from another source but this seems to be the source for this theory. This suggests that this fixation on the Frankfurt School by a section of the political right only began in the 1990s. This is what Müller and the editors of PCG's recruitment magazine present to their readers.

There is also another troubling problem with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. Thankfully Müller avoids this problem. This conspiracy theory has been used to vilify Jews. I must strongly emphasize that thankfully this problem does not apply to Müller's article. But there is a history of this Frankfurt School conspiracy theory being used to vilify Jews.

Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. ... In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of "Marxism" that took aim at American society's culture, rather than its economic system.

The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called "Frankfurt School" of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, "family values," and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left. (Bill Berkowitz, 'Cultural Marxism' Catching On, Southern Poverty Law Center, August 15, 2003.)

But why fixate on such an obscure academic school of thought? Well, it turns out that the Frankfurt School's obscurity actually makes it attractive as a target for paranoid scapegoating.

Like Jews in general, the Frankfurt School makes a convenient antagonist — one that is basically seen as antithetical to all things American. The school, says social psychology professor Richard Lichtman of the Berkeley-based Wright Institute, is "a convenient target that very few people really know anything about.

"By grounding their critique in Marxism and using the Frankfurt School, [cultural conservatives] make it seem like it's quite foreign to anything American. It takes on a mysterious cast and translates as an incomprehensible, anti-American, foreign movement that is only interested in undermining the U.S.," he said. "The idea being transmitted is that we are being infected from the outside." (Bill Berkowitz, 'Cultural Marxism' Catching On, Southern Poverty Law Center, August 15, 2003.)

Of course not everyone who promotes this Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic.

Not everyone who uses the cultural Marxism construct sees Jews in general at the center of the plot. (Bill Berkowitz, 'Cultural Marxism' Catching On, Southern Poverty Law Center, August 15, 2003.)

Thankfully this is also true with Müller's article. Most emphatically Müller's article is not anti-Semitic. But it is necessary to note how some have used this Frankfurt School conspiracy theory has been used to promote anti-Semitism already.

Let us now return to Müller's article.

Journalist and editor Ralph de Toledano dubbed Eros and Civilization “the Bible of the New Left movement.”

And where did Müller find this quote?

In short, the activists of the New Left, like Gramsci, believed Engels had put the cart before the horse. Engels had argued that the abolition of private property would lead to the withering away of the family. Reich, Marcuse and the activists of the New Left said it was the other way round. The withering away of the family would cause society to abolish private property as individuals became more reliant on the state for economic security.

What is Müller saying? Is he insinuating that New Left, Marcuse and Reich were part of some sinister conspiracy to abolish private property and the family? If so it is a ridiculous insinuation. Even if they speculated in theory about what such a society would be like it is most absurd to try and blame them for the social changes that have happened since the 1960s. This is a frightfully crude attempt at red baiting and hurling McCarthyite slurs.

One of the primary cultural institutions targeted by the New Left was the Democratic Party in the United States. During the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the New Left’s Students for a Democratic Society rioted against pro-Vietnam War candidate Hubert Humphrey. Such civil unrest succeeded in pushing the Democratic Party further left, leading to the nomination of presidential candidate George McGovern in 1972. ...

The Democratic Party now had its original wing, the labor caucus, and a new wing: the New Left counterculture caucus. The divide between these two wings weakened the party during the election of 1972, and it became more closely associated with the hippie-style protests and Maoist slogans of the New Left. The “silent majority” of Americans became uncomfortable and moved into action, electing the previously unpopular Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon.

Another reason why McGovern got to be the candidate was that the Nixon campaign had sabotaged the campaign of his rival in the primaries, Senator Edmund Muskie, who a candidate widely perceived as being more likely to unseat Nixon. The Nixon campaign produced a certain letter which was fraudulently attributed in such a manner as to discredit Senator Muskie.

Marx and Engels published their vision in a manuscript known as The Communist Manifesto. Antonio Gramsci and Wilhelm Reich were both members of the Communist International. Herbert Marcuse was a self-avowed Marxist. Saul Alinsky was deeply influenced by the ideological goals of both Marx and Engels; his disdain for the traditional biblical family may be ascertained in one of the individuals he dedicated his book to: Lucifer. President Obama and Hillary Clinton prefer the term “progressive” (a term popularized in Gramsci’s writings) to describe their political ideology. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders preferred the phrase “democratic socialist.”

At the end of the day, the label these individuals use does not matter. What matters is the vision they share: The social welfare functions that are traditionally performed by the family should be performed instead by a state agency.

Reich was kicked out of the German Communist Party in 1933. Blaming Marcuse for the sexual revolution is absurd and is part of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. Slurring the word "progressive" as being from Gramsci is crude red baiting and McCarthyite scare mongering. There are so many things wrong with this article.

Müller also brings up Saul Alinsky. Again he has often been cited by figures within the right so once again Müller is merely imitating other right wing authors that he choose to imitate.

Müller seems to imply that women doing paid work is not ideal.

The popularization of pornography and premarital sex during the sexual revolution led to the undermining of the matrimonial bond uniting families together, leading to a wave of abortions and divorces. As women left the home in droves to join the workforce, children were left behind in local day-care centers. As these children reached adulthood, many of them gave up on the idea of marriage and family. They were discouraged by their parents’ example and well aware that sex outside of marriage was now socially acceptable.

Müller also seems to object to the federal government trying to provide for American citizens.

The U.S. government now spends 49 percent of its annual budget on mandatory government entitlement programs. Politicians can talk about the financial dangers of out-of-control welfare spending, but the fact is that a huge chunk of the population uses these programs. Why? In many cases it is because of the dissolution of family. The cultural revolution is well underway!

He once again seeks to incite irrational fears of Communist subversion by referring to recent social changes as a "cultural revolution." How absurd and grotesque.

He seems to think that a government looking after its people is a bad thing.

The uncomfortable truth is that Reich, father of the sexual revolution, was right: If you destroy the family as the basic economic unit of society, you create a culture where people are far likelier to accept state supremacy.

Inconsistently Müller writes for an organization which insists that the entire world will soon be united under the millennial rule of Jesus Christ. What is going on here? Why the inconsistency?

Here is one possible answer. If the American people were able to trust governmental institutions more then they might think that there was no need to join an authoritarian group like PCG. If the government will protect and help the people then why go to PCG for protection?

At the time Mr. Armstrong wrote these words, there wasn’t yet any sensational dent in the number of marriages taking place. Yet today, after 60-plus years of Gramsci-style “passive revolution,” the traditional family is already halfway down the path toward extinction. What remains when the family unit is completely destroyed?

What garbage. What a joke. This is laughable. Is he even serious?

How could the divorce rate increase to 100%? It will not.

And yet no doubt many within PCG will take his words quite seriously. These words do not deserve such consideration.

Without strong families to educate children and care for those who can’t care for themselves, people are turn to the state for security. History shows that when the state seizes womb-to-tomb responsibility over people’s lives, dictators like Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Josip Tito or Fidel Castro always end up gaining control.

These words are a vile attempt to slur the American left as though they were like Communist dictators. What vile nonsense! This is simply McCarthyism revived. The spirit of McCarthyism is alive and well in the offices of PCG Headquarters. No good can come from this.

But it is intriguing that Müller chose to condemn Tito. During the Kosovo War of 1998-9 Gerald Flurry chose to condemn the Yugoslav Wars as "evidence" that Germany was on the verge of emerging as a military superpower fated to conquer the United States. He wrote a booklet on this topic entitled The Rising Beast (later renamed Germany's Conquest of the Balkans) which tended to present Communist Yugoslavia in a fairly benign way in order to demonize Germany.

Unhinged Communist philosophers like Engels and Marcuse would have had no effect on modern society if the people knew and clung to God’s law. The problems in America and Britain today are a direct result of the sin of the people. No political candidate is going to “make America great again,” no matter what people think. It is going to take national repentance to bring people back to God and restore this world’s broken family structure.

It is absurd to blame the recent social changes on some Communist philosophers. This is crude, McCarthyite scapegoating.

Strange. The highlighted sentence seems familiar.

America’s problems are a direct result of AMERICA’S SINS. No political candidate is going to “make America great again,” no matter what people think! I would like to see it happen, but it isn’t going to happen in this age. Everyone will come to recognize that truth before much longer! GOD will make America great again in the World Tomorrow. He is going to solve our problems—in spite of our rebellion. He will SAVE America—and the world—at Jesus Christ’s return, which will occur immediately after all these crises climax. (Gerald Flurry, America's Real Enemy, August 2016.)

Did Müller get Gerald Flurry's permission to use that line. And even if he did it is still plagiarism since readers will have the mistaken impression that he wrote that line when he did not.

Müller ends his article with these words.

A strong family built on the biblical model—with a faithfully married, family-focused father and mother intent on fulfilling their respective roles—is an ideal any clear-thinking person should treasure. Only after people learn this vital lesson will God be able to finally teach all nations the way to true peace, joy and prosperity!

But these idealized people will not know history well if they trust this article.

And so we see that PCG has allowed to be printed a very flawed, paranoid article that shamefully continues the ways of McCarthyism. The spirit of McCarthyism is alive and well in PCG Headquarters. No good can come from this.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

It is terrible how HWA exploited the Feast of Tabernacles to cause his followers to revile all Christians as false and under the influence of Satan. The Feast of Tabernacles is a beautiful festival that is precious to Jews all over the world. It is terrible how HWA exploited this festival to make his followers think his organization was the only true religion on all the Earth.

HWA barely knew anything about the Feast of Tabernacles and he mangled it beyond recognition. Among the Jewish community it is a joyous festival that is spent at home or visiting relatives and friends. They build sukkot (singular sukkah), an outdoor enclosure on their property, in their homes in memory of the wandering in the wilderness and joyfully celebrate the Feast together in their homes.

But HWA did not understand any of this. Getting his followers to build sukkah in their homes and meeting with family, friends and follow believers of the Radio/Worldwide Church of God would not help HWA. The members focus and resources would be spent on each other and not HWA's leadership. So he turned it into an eight day annual conference. Instead of being in a tent like sukkah he got his followers to assemble together and twisted this joyous feast into an eight indoctrination session and annual conference.

Many churches and organizations have an annual conference of some kind. Usually they only last for a weekend. But HWA imposed an eight day annual conference upon his followers. What can possibly be done in eight days that cannot be done in a weekend? This is a terrible burden HWA imposed on his followers.

HWA committed a shameful act of cultural appropriation exploiting this beautiful Jewish festival for his own narrow sectarian ends. It is shameful what HWA did to this beautiful festival and twisted it into an unnecessary burden that serves to more effective control his followers. It is terrible what HWA did to this beautiful festival. We should have respected this beautiful Jewish festival and left it alone, leaving it the Jewish community.

There is no need for a Christian to observe this festival. We should leave this beautiful Jewish festival alone.

Monday, September 12, 2016

When Osama bin Laden led Al Qaeda to commit their monstrous act of mass murder on September 11, 2001, many people were murdered by the foul murderer. Many people were shocked and appalled and yearned to stand up against him. To this day many cannot fathom how people can be so cruel and heartless.

And what did PCG's 1% do? They said Osama bin Laden condemned America for her sins. PCG's leaders said Osama bin Laden was right to condemn America for her sins.

PCG agreed with Osama bin Laden that America is sinful.

They said the sins of America allowed Osama bin Laden to commit 9/11 thus blaming the victims for causing this act of mass murder to occur.

These sins and many others are the reasons why God did not protect our nation from that terrorist attack. (Carl Hilliker, The Iraq Campaign and American Hypocrisy, June 2003.)

Instead of helping people to heal from this most terrible event PCG's leaders chose to agree with Osama bin Laden and use him to make people feel guilty for doing things PCG's leaders disapprove of by blaming them for causing 9/11 to happen.

Osama bin Laden and the murderers associated with him are responsible for what happened on 9/11. No one else.

Also why trust one capable of doing something so monstrous? The victims were of all ethnicities and religions. Over thirty of the victims were Muslims. Many of them Bangladeshis who worked in a restaurant. Why is it PCG's leaders never bothered to note this aspect of the atrocity? If Osama bin Laden was actually fighting for Muslims why did he murder them as well? Because he was not fighting for Islam. He was fighting to gain power for himself.

This is a religious war! It has been declared, loud and strong, by one
of its principle antagonists as such. In a videotaped message aired over
Arabian television stations, Osama bin Laden said, “This war is
primarily a religious war.” Appealing to Muslims worldwide, he said,
“Rise in support of your religion. Islam is calling you” (Toronto Star,
Nov. 4). This is the opposite message to the one President Bush is
seeking to put across to those Muslim states he hopes to retain in the
coalition against terrorism. (Ron Fraser, The Power of Religion, December 2001.)

Amazingly Fraser just trusts Osama bin Laden at face value and does not suspect that perhaps bin Laden was up to something else. Osama bin Laden portrayed himself as one who fought for Muslims. But this was not true. Osama bin Laden fought for himself in order to gain power. He exploited the Islamic religion to get more recruits who would fight, not for Islam, but for Osama bin Laden.

Here is another example.

In evaluating current events in light of these prophecies, the Trumpet’s purpose is not to condemn any religion. Yes—GOD’SLAWabsolutely condemns the seething hatred and violence being cultivated among many Islamist groups. But realize this: YOURBIBLE shows that God is in fact MOREANGRY with the nations those groups are TARGETING! (Joel Hilliker, Is Islam a Threat?, March 2003.)

So PCG's God is at the time this article was written (March 2003) "MORE ANGRY" at Americans then towards those plotting that vile act of mass murder.

It seems as though those who follow PCG should be "MORE ANGRY" at the American victims for their sins than towards those responsible for committing the act of mass murder. How grotesque.

Whether that was his primary motive or not, Osama bin Laden justified the attack on the Twin Towers of New York City by pointing to the immorality prevalent in Western civilization—an immorality we are spreading throughout the world. The plain truth is, [PCG's] God sees the same immorality, the same sins, in our people that bin Laden saw. Yet any suggestion that America needed to repent of personal and national sins was met with overwhelming criticism from the majority of TV and talk-radio personalities, as well as most government officials.

These sins and many others are the reasons why God did not protect our nation from that terrorist attack. (Carl Hilliker, The Iraq Campaign and American Hypocrisy, June 2003.)

So PCG's God views Americans the same way as Osama bin Laden does. What blasphemous nonsense! Does this mean that PCG worships a "God" who is like Osama bin Laden?

Here is another example.

At the same time, we ignore the Creator God who prophesies throughout
His Word that He punishes for such despicable sins. Even the most
violent terrorists can see and are offended by our unparalleled
immorality. Surely we must believe that God would also be offended. But
our people don’t care. We have descended into a kind of spiritual
madness. Only the worst kind of punishment can ever awaken us. The Great
Tribulation is going to be the worst suffering ever. The punishment
fits the crime. Never was there a greater need to awaken! ...
We prate about how good we are and sing “God Bless America”—but God is cursing America, Britain and the Jews in the Middle East. He will continue to do so until we see our black sins and repent.

One of the main motivations for terrorists attacking the U.S.
on September 11 was the impact of our sick culture on the Arab world.
God can punish us through evil men. ... That nation is Israel—primarily Britain and America today. They are hypocritical—evil people who say they are good.
We talk about how good we are, but spiritually we are the sickest
nations on this planet—considering the physical blessings God has given
us. (Gerald Flurry, The Last Hour, Chapter 5, 2004, pp. 65-66.)

What degraded nonsense. PCG's leaders say they know what is really happening and yet they said Osama bin Laden was right. They made no attempt to see if anything else might better explain his behavior. They even used that foul murderer to as supporting evidence that America is sinful.

If You are new please read this

Hand in Hand for Syria

Keep Somalia's Remittances Open

I encourage readers to sign this petition from Oxfam calling upon the U.S. government to let the Somali diaspora continue to send remittance to their loved ones in Somalia.

Moves have been made to shut down such remittances from Somalis in America. Many Somalis need these remittances. The remittances to Somalia are larger than foreign aid contributions and are a lifeline to these people caught in trouble and turmoil.

It is true that HWA said that some Eastern European states would break away from Moscow's orbit and join the European Empire he said would arise at any moment. But he never talked of the Soviet Union collapsing. He did not teach that. Also he portrayed the rise of the European Empire to be far quicker then what has actually happened. In Mystery of the Ages Christ was supposed to return by 2005 at the most.

So assertions that the fall of the Berlin Wall somehow prove that HWA was right is just complete nonsense spread by people who, for whatever reason, are still in denial that HWA was a false prophet who merely talked out of his own "human reasoning".

Truth about Roderick C. Meredith

What sort of man is he? A man who could say things like this.

"Mr. Armstrong has reminded us again that we are to disfellowship any members who attend GTA's [Garner Ted Armstrong's] campaigns, church services or other meetings. Some of our weaker members apparently do not realize that this man is in direct rebellion against God and His government! We must not allow them, or ourselves, to rationalize about this matter, to try to "help the underdog," or in any other way lend support to one whose gross immorality, whose long standing "play acting" and hypocrisy, and whose direct insubordination to the Government of God has long been and is now a source of confusion and DIVISION among God's people. So, as per Mr. Armstrong's instruction, I charge and exhort every one of you faithful ministers of the living Christ to explain this in no uncertain terms to your members, to warn them about this cause of division and then to disfellowship any who consort with GTA or any of his fellows." (Roderick C. Meredith, Pastor's Report, May 21, 1979, pp. 1-2.)

David Robinson on Roderick C. Meredith

"During the ten years I have been an employee of the Worldwide Church, you have been poorly spoken of by most of the ministers and employees I have known. I vividly remember the absolute unbounded glee that was openly expressed by a good number of respected men in the church when you were first "shanghaied." [In 1972.] I could begin by naming names, which I am sure would shock you. I was one of the few who stood, where possible, for you. Your tenure as superintendent of ministers, as I believe the office was then called, was looked on as nightmarish. While you held office during the years of growth, most of those whom I know gave you very little credit for that growth. Almost everyone whom I know, whether they be former friends of yours, or continuing foes, recalls insensitive and terrible things you have done. Without exception, at least among my acquaintances, they all credit you with an unbridled lust for power and list you as one who is willing to pay the price of gaining that power, no matter what. I have, through many of the last few years, believed you had principles you would not violate. Many a man of experience in the church assured me of my error. Events have proven me wrong and them right. Mr. Armstrong has himself been widely quoted as saying of you that you were so righteous that you were so "righteous you were unrighteous." " (David Robinson, Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web, Chapter 16, p. 207.)

Of course it is impossible for me to personally verify these assertions but people deserve to know what this knowledgeable man had to say about him.